[1] I changed my graduate teaching last year to encourage my students to think more about replication and it's already had a positive impact on our research.

I figured I would share the details and an example in case others might be interested in giving it a try.

[2] I normally have students write a novel research proposal for their main assignment in my graduate seminars.

Last year, I did a survey of the students and asked if they'd like the option to propose a registered replication instead.

The response was unanimous and positive.

[3] I was co-teaching a seminar on intergroup relations with Mo Craig and we allowed every student to decide if they wanted to write a novel research proposal or a registered replication for their term paper

Here is our syllabus with details & hyperlinks: http://www.psych.nyu.edu/vanbavel/lab/documents/2019-IntergroupRelations-Syllabus-MASTER.pdf

[4] About half of the class opted for the original research proposal and have opted for the registered replication.

We had students carefully justify their selection of a replication for submission to the new PDR section @PsychScience

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0956797617718802

[5] The new PDR section was created to replicate papers in Psych Science--but the replication itself must make a contribution: "the primary criterion is general theoretical significance".

The section was created after a replication of one of our papers.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0956797617718802

[6] Students in the class submitted a mini-proposal and gave a presentation. Both steps included peer review, making the proposals much stronger.

I should add that the replication presentations were crystal clear & very detailed. It was a great exercise for students.

[7] I was surprised by how generative the final term papers were--the replication proposals always included new measures, stimuli, and studies to expand beyond the original work in creative and original ways.

Thinking about replication wasn't an end point, but a beginning.

[8] The replication proposals were fantastic, easily on par with traditional term papers.

Then came an even bigger payoff. Two students revised & submitted their proposals to Psych Science and one was already conditionally accepted.

Judge for yourself: https://twitter.com/jayvanbavel/status/1263120947315343361

[9] The peer review process at Psych Science was constructive and very helpful. It improved the papers well beyond what emerged in the class (and during our own revisions).

IMHO, the final product was excellent and the entire process was enjoyable. I will definitely do it again.

[10] I'll note that one other proposal was rejected at Psych Science, partially because the original paper we were replicating was not cited very much.

We are now revising & resubmitting the proposal to another journal. So there is risk, but it's no different than other papers.

[11] In sum, this was a win-win-win:

-It's a win for students
-It's a win for faculty
-It's a win for science

Faculty are free to steal anything from our syllabus if you want to try it, and students should ask faculty if they'll allow this as an option instead of term papers.